Questions about the living cell

quote:

---

So? It's a model. No one says it's the absolute truth. But this model is a lot more plausible than "poof".

Not unless you can demonstrate it.

The truth is...you can't.

---

Unless you plan to demonstrate a cell being supernaturally created. Stop the special pleading, it is intellectually dishonest.

You have been given a plausible model that was provided by Cavediver. The fact that you reject it on personal grounds really has no bearing on the plausibility of the model.

Essentially you are saying a non-model approach (poof) is better than a modeled approach.

Ask yourself: Are you being intellectually honest here? Or are you just trying to talk the loudest?

Edited by Dman, : Spelling

Edited by Dman, : Grammar

Another intellectually dishonest statement. No one said this.

You have been given a scientific model (not paraded as absolute truth, but still scientific). You chose to "hand wave" it away. Fine. But remember your post is in the science section. "Poof" is not science and will not constitute as an alternative here.

If you really want to avoid setting up a false dichotomy, the other option (yours) needs to be valid, and the only other alternative. As it stands right now, it is neither.

On to your OP.

I noticed someone else asked you to provide a definition of information and you just mentioned DNA. My opinion is, that’s really not a definition of information.

Fact: Honestly I avoid debating creationists who use information in their arguments, because it never goes anywhere. So don’t bother trying to define it.

Opinion: Science is the right tool for the job. A tool that will eventually answer this question. Tentatively of course.

Fact: Creationists use god-of-the-gaps arguments in the frontiers of science. “We don’t know” becomes god-did-it. Like early explanations for lightning.

Opinion: Science is the right tool for the job. A tool that will eventually answer this question. Tentatively of course.

Fact: Creationists use god-of-the-gaps arguments in the frontiers of science. We don’t know becomes god-did-it. Like early explanations for lightning.

You’re welcome.

Seriously? What is your point here? You had to have known that this question of yours is at the frontiers of science and still in very early stages, and mostly just being modeled?…Right? You knew this.

Be honest. You are just trying to bamboozle those who might just be observing, and you feel you have evidence that will push them your way. When all you have is unanswered questions for you to insert god. Trust me, God will be a temporary answer, as it has been during every other example of unanswered questions at the frontiers of science.

*POOF* I’m done.

Edited by Dman, : No reason given.

The truth is left to be found in that case.

What you are doing is setting up a false dichotomy, where you attempt to show that nature cannot create such and such protein, and blah blah, so therefore it had to have supernatural origins. BUT you have yet to show the supernatural origins.

I have no problem with you proving that nature can't create what you claim in your OP. But I will not accept your unproven alternative (poof) as the default answer.

Sure looked like it to me. Your whole argument reeks of personal incredulity. You haven't actually shown why nature could NOT do what you say it can't. You just don't see how, which means very little in proving that it can't.

And what did you find? My guess is not very much, because this sort of thing is still in it's infancy. Science will always need to answer questions about any particular theory. Throwing out a scientific theory because new questions are flowing in and have yet to be fully answered, is anti-science, unintelligent and wholly ignorant. just my opinion, you don't have to like it.

What reasoning? Letting science answer science questions?

Really? More dishonesty to bamboozle the masses?

For the same reason astrology is not scientific.

I read your other thread on this and it made me chuckle. Although this is off topic I'll reply anyway.

Living fossils are a prediction of the ToE. The prediction being, we should see little change in the fossil ancestors of living species that have gone through very little or no change in environment. And guess what? WE DO. Just another confirmed prediction of the ToE.

Now. If you want this argument to work, go and find a living species with ancestors that lived in a vastly different environment, and show little to no change. Run along.

quote:

---

The truth is left to be found in that case.

Not for us.

---

I'm not following. You said that if both options were wrong, what is left. So you would purposely chose a wrong answer over searching for the real one? Weird.

Wait. What? I thought we were talking about proteins and the like. You know, biology.

But the bottom line is, if you can't show your alternative to be possible, it isn't an alternative....

You just aren't getting it. So you claim to have experienced the supernatural. I'll even give you the benefit of the doubt, and except that the supernatural really exists (or whatever). BUT have you experienced a cell being supernaturally created??? No, you haven't, and you need to, to use the reasoning above. Just because (for arguments sake) the supernatural realm exists, does not mean it created the first so-and-so protein. You need to show that it did, which is EXACTLY what you are asking the opposition to do, when they say it was done naturally. Please be fair and apply your very own standards to your position. Or stop the special pleading altogether.